I can *kind of* imagine them doing a hand-off, if only because it's actually one thing they could get ahead of Marvel on (as they'll inevitably be switching to new Iron Men and Captains America within just another few movies). They're probably too afraid to do a Batman story without it being Bruce Wayne, though, even though truth be told like Spider-Man they'd probably benefit a great deal by just saying no to the origin story and refusing to engage with it at all rather than incorporating it into every single movie (in this case by using a different character).

...the upcoming films will figure out a way to gracefully exit the character from the storyline...

This certainly won't be the case, will it? Won't they just recast Batman?

I imagine he will be re-cast. Batman is arguably the biggest character in comic books today and it doesn't make any sense to not have him in future films. It also didn't make sense to cast a 40 year as Batman for a long-term franchise series, but that's a topic for another time.

Except for Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman and Henry Cavill as Superman, I wish WB/DC rebooted everything else in their film universe and actually make a plan like Marvel did. Their ineptitude is astounding when it comes to these films. For example, it was announced today, that after so much online promotion, The Rock won't be part of the Shazam! movie. Why have two years of teasing and interviews and promotion and not deliver? It's pretty clear that the only things truly working for WB regarding DC are Wonder Woman and the Arrowverse TV universe. The reason for this is because they have been pretty loyal to the source material. Well, WB should start from that idea and get the ball rolling.

Most interesting here is Flashpoint. Essentially it's a story about how the Flash goes back in time, does something and returns to the present. Except by doing something in the past he has altered the future. This is a great way for both Warners and DC to retcon any problem story elements and yes, even cast a new Batman. Can't say I'm shocked.

No need to cast a new Batman. Word out of SDCC is he's sticking around to work with Matt Reeves.

I am the luckiest guy in the world. Batman is the coolest fucking part in any universe. It’s fucking amazing and I still can’t believe it after two films… And Matt Reeves doing it, I would be an ape on the ground for Matt Reeves. And I think you’ll see why I’m so excited to be Batman.

FigrinDan wrote:No need to cast a new Batman. Word out of SDCC is he's sticking around to work with Matt Reeves.

I am the luckiest guy in the world. Batman is the coolest fucking part in any universe. It’s fucking amazing and I still can’t believe it after two films… And Matt Reeves doing it, I would be an ape on the ground for Matt Reeves. And I think you’ll see why I’m so excited to be Batman.

But also of note that the Flash movie is title Flashpoint, so it will probably be based on the comic book mini-series that rebooted the whole DC, Vertigo and Wildstorm universes into the New 52. It could be the perfect scenario to recast/reboot any franchise and remove/add any actor they would like. Wouldn't be surprised if Affleck is out after that.

Marvel's SDCC was less splashy (Feige maintains they're keeping mum about the post-Avengers future for another year) but had some interesting nuggets; the big one is probably that Captain Marvel will be set in the 90s complete with a young Nick Fury, which should make it a welcome change of pace.

Marvel also announced that Michelle Pfeiffer will play Janet Van Dyne (The Wasp, founding member of the Avengers in the comic books and wife of Hank Pym) and Lawrence Fishburne will play Bill Foster, the second Giant Man, better known as Black Goliath. If I'm not mistaken, Fishburne will be the first actor to have roles in both the DC and Marvel Cinematic Universes. He's been very critical on the shit job that WB has done with the DC films, so I wouldn't be surprised if his DC character, Perry White, is re-cast in the future.

Re-shoots on Justice League have gone on so long and talent scheduling is such a headache that effects artists will be forced to digitally remove a mustache Henry Cavill grew for his role in the upcoming Mission: Impossible sequel.

I’ve read a lot of angry comments disagreeing with Cameron. But I mostly agree with him. I liked Wonder Woman a lot but I thought her character was more akin to something like Angelina Jolie’s Tomb Raider than Linda Hamilton’s Sarah Conner or Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley. Which is to say no one was trying to sleep with Conner or Ripley or Charlize Theron’s Furiosa.

If we get a bunch of films about beautiful women kicking ass while being ogled at; at what point does it become exploitative?

I do think Jenkins has a point that female leads don't have to be damaged to be complex or valid or enjoyable. But it is amusing to see the director of Monster doing her level best to defend cheerful pretty female leads after all these years

Luke M wrote:I’ve read a lot of angry comments disagreeing with Cameron. But I mostly agree with him. I liked Wonder Woman a lot but I thought her character was more akin to something like Angelina Jolie’s Tomb Raider than Linda Hamilton’s Sarah Conner or Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley. Which is to say no one was trying to sleep with Conner or Ripley or Charlize Theron’s Furiosa.

If we get a bunch of films about beautiful women kicking ass while being ogled at; at what point does it become exploitative?

Cameron is entitled to give his opinion, but it seems like a flat-out hypocritical one, considering that he's admitted in interviews that the female Na'vi were intentionally designed to be ogled in a way that was essentially as close to porn as is possible with PG-13, but that didn't stop him from patting himself on the back for delivering such an important message with the film.

Luke M wrote:If we get a bunch of films about beautiful women kicking ass while being ogled at; at what point does it become exploitative?

Seems like they'd have to be considered case by case on the merits of the film as a whole and examples of things that seemed gratuitous. I'm not going to see Wonder Woman so can't say if there are any such examples in this film. And if it's just about some of the costumes, then one would have to have to consider what the costume designer was trying to do with them and what she had to work with: an "Amazon" type character from 1940s low culture, wearing basically a strapless bathing suit and high-heeled boots.

Definitely. For one thing, comic books had an extremely low standing in the culture from the "Golden Age" till the birth of the "graphic novel," and were widely considered absolute trash, only fit for halfwits and children, and at times not even deemed suitable for the latter.

And I think it's worth noting how Superman and other superheroes came from an amalgam of other things from "low culture" forms that predated comic books such as pulp magazines: Tarzan, Doc Savage, the Shadow and other characters with secret identities. In fact the main forerunner to DC, National Allied, was started by former pulp writers.
OK, this post is so geeky it's making me a little ill.